In Yurkiw Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 1026 (CanLII), the Supreme Court of British Columbia clarified the scope of an estate trustee’s file that must be disclosed to beneficiaries.

On November 21, 2024, the court ordered Heritage Trust, the estate trustee of the estate of David Thomas George Yurkiw, to produce its “entire file” to one of the beneficiaries of the estate, except for “any documents over which solicitor client privilege can be claimed as against the beneficiaries”.

Not satisfied with the disclosure he received from Heritage Trust, one of the beneficiaries brought an application to compel Heritage Trust to comply with the previous order. In particular, the beneficiary sought disclosure of the file of Heritage Trust’s lawyer, including the basis for any redactions in the disclosure.

The court began by stating a fundamental trustee obligation: any trustee, and especially an institutional one charging fees for its services, has an obligation to maintain a “file” of trust documents. However, in the age of electronic communications, maintaining, retaining and reconstructing a single “file” may prove challenging. That is why trustees should have procedures in place for electronic record management, which are communicated to the beneficiaries from the outset. This is because the “file” belongs to the beneficiaries, subject to specific exceptions.

The court then clarified the conceptual issue of what constitutes a “file”, which it defined as the “totality of trust documents”. Citing the English Court of Appeal decision in Re Londonderry’s Settlement, [1964] 3 All E.R. 855, the court explained that “trust documents” are documents in the possession of the trustee and includes information about the trust that the beneficiaries are entitled to know, that is not subject to a rule permitting the withholding of that information.

All physical and electronic records in the possession or control of the trustee containing information about the trust are “trust documents” and therefore constitute the “file”, unless:

1. They are “transitory documents”, meaning records a trustee will not retain because the information is duplicative or unimportant, and may be too expensive to retain;
2. They are within a category of exception to the principle that beneficiaries are entitled to see trust documents – this includes documents subject to solicitor-client privilege where the trustee has a separate interest from the beneficiaries regarding the legal advice received, and redactions to preserve the privacy interests of the beneficiaries that do not impact the trustee’s accounting obligations to the beneficiaries.

Applying the above principles to the case, the court found that Heritage Trust had not disclosed all trust documents to the beneficiary. There was no evidence before the court from Heritage Trust explaining its practices, policies and procedures regarding record collection and retention. Heritage Trust did not advise the court about why it had not provided all trust documents to the beneficiary as it had been ordered to it.

The court then ordered that the costs of the application be borne by Heritage Trust, without indemnity from the trust, because the court was of the view that the Heritage Trust had failed to disclose the entirety of its file as required. Moreover, the application was adversarial, and Heritage Trust argued in favour of its personal interest, and not in the interests of the estate.

Take Away

This case demonstrates the importance of professional trustees having document management protocols and policies in place, communicating those protocols to beneficiaries, and ensuring they are followed. Subject to limited exceptions, a trustee must be prepared to produce to the beneficiaries its “entire file”, which means everything in the trustee’s possession that contains information about the trust. Moreover, where a trustee fails to maintain and produce its entire file, they should not take for granted that the trust will pay their legal costs when their actions are challenged by a beneficiary.